The second consideration in urban planning regarding water is providing a mechanism to get rid of unwanted water. In the most simple case, this entails constructing a drainage system sufficient to carry away or divert rainwater. In cities such as Rome that are situated on a river prone to flooding, provision for dealing with floodwaters can also be a factor. Finally, there is the problem of disposing of water that has become contaminated, especially that which has been mingled with excrement. In modern cities, the drainage system and the sewage system are separate networks, but in ancient Rome, as in most cities until quite recently, the two were combined.
The earliest Roman drainage system was clearly built to deal with the problem of excessive water rather than as a way to get rid of sewage. The site of Rome, with its many springs, its proximity to the Tiber, and its many low-lying valleys situated between hills, meant that the low-lying areas had an excess of water and, at least during parts of the year, seem to have taken on the character of swamps or marshes. A number of literary sources emphasize the swampy nature of early Rome; the situation was so bad that a regular ferry apparently operated among the main hills during the wet season. These marshy areas included some of the most geograph-icaily significant crossroads, such as the Forum Boarium and the Forum Romanum; therefore, the development of the city depended on rendering these areas drier and more habitable on a year-round basis. The earliest public work known at Rome was intended to accomplish exactly this purpose,
Rome's first drain would become its most famous—the Cloaca Maxima, "the great sewer." The earliest version of this drain was constructed by the kings and ran through the Roman Forum, crossed the Velabrum between the Capitoline and Palatine hills, and then emptied into the Tiber. Its original form seems to have been an open ditch, and as late as the third century 8C, there was still a danger of pedestrians in the forum falling into it. The kings had to employ compulsory labor in the construction of this drain and, according to legend, the work was so arduous that some laborers committed suicide rather than continue to be forced to work on it. Later reconstructions of the Cloaca Maxima eventually transformed it into a completely underground conduit, and numerous other drainage sewers built by a succession of administrators, including Cato, were added to serve the other sections of the city.
In their fully developed form, these sewers were impressive engineering achievements made of concrete or even high-quality stone. The capac-
Figure 3.4 Outlet of the Cloaca Maxima into the Tiber River.
Ity of the sewers was also astonishing. Portions of the Cloaca Maxima were more than four meters tall and three meters wide, leading Pliny the Elder to claim that one could drive a fully loaded wagon of hay through Rome's sewers (Pliny the Elder, Natural History 36.108). The Cloaca Maxima in its final form covered a distance of 900 meters in a straight line from its origin to the Tiber, but due to its many twists and turns, its actual course was 1,600 meters in length. This drain remained in use until modern times, and even today its outlet is readily visible, embedded in the modern embankments. A certain type of fish that lived in the Tiber and fed off refuse from the Cloaca Maxima was a particularly prized delicacy that could fetch a high price for the lucky fisherman who managed to catch one.
As with the aqueducts, Agrippa was a key figure in the development of the sewers. As part of his aedileship in 33 bc, he had the sewer system cleaned and rebuilt much of it. According to several sources, his zeal for ensuring a proper job of renovation was so great that he himself conducted a personal tour of the sewers, traveling through them by boat. Over time, more sewers were added that drained other parts of the city until, by the empire, there was an extensive network of underground sewers beneath the city's streets.
This system played an essential role in keeping the low-lying areas of the city dry and would also have helped to expedite the drying-out process after a flood. A secondary function was to carry away waste, particularly the estimated 100,000 pounds of excrement produced daily by the inhabitants of the city. The majority of sewage that found its way into the system did not come directly from latrines; only a tiny handful of houses had toilets linked directly to the sewers, and there were very few public latrines. Most waste was dumped in the streets, and from there might find its way into the sewers. The overflow from the fountains served a vital role in cleaning the city by washing some of this filth into the drains, a point recognized by Frontinus.
This arrangement seems disturbing from a modern perspective, but there were very practical reasons why one would not want a direct link from one's dwelling to the sewer.
Since there were neither water nor traps in Roman toilets, a connection with the sewer would have served as an entry point into one's home for all the unpleasant smells and gases building up in the sewers. In addition to the obvious olfactory distress this would have caused, these gases could even prove deadly, since the buildup of methane can actually cause explosions (as has been attested for similar sewer systems, such as that of Victorian Britain). Those who had to venture into the sewers to clean them faced the real possibility of choking to death, and this task seems to have been given, at least on some occasions, to criminals. A further danger was posed when the Tiber flooded, which would inevitably have caused the flow of the sewers to reverse, resulting in their contents being disgorged up into the city from any access points, including private homes linked to the sewers. Finally, a direct connection to the sewer would have been a point of ingress for unwanted vermin. While rats would have been the most common of such unwelcome visitors, there are accounts of more exotic intruders as well. According to the writer Aelian, the house of a fish merchanf was invaded each nighf by an opporfunisfic ocfopus, which forged its way up out of fhe sewer and raided the house's stock of preserved fish (Aelian, On Animals 13.6).
Ancient authors expressed great awe at Rome's sewer system, even counting it as one of the greatest wonders of fhe cify (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 3.67.5; Pliny fhe Elder, Natural History 36.104-8). Their admirafion is summed up by the rhetorical question of Cassiodorus: "What other city can compare with Rome in her heights, when her depths are so incomparable?" (Cassiodorus, Variae 3.30.1-2).
World History
